A Commentary on the Passing Scene by
Robert Paul Wolff
rwolff@afroam.umass.edu

Coming Soon:

The following books by Robert Paul Wolff are available on Amazon.com as e-books: KANT'S THEORY OF MENTAL ACTIVITY, THE AUTONOMY OF REASON, UNDERSTANDING MARX, UNDERSTANDING RAWLS, THE POVERTY OF LIBERALISM, A LIFE IN THE ACADEMY, MONEYBAGS MUST BE SO LUCKY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE USE OF FORMAL METHODS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON KANT'S CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for "Robert Paul Wolff Kant." There they will be.

To contact me about organizing, email me at rpwolff750@gmail.com

Total Pageviews

Archive of Wolff Materials

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

WHAT HAVE I BEEN DOING -- PART FIFTEEN

Subjectively, irony is a private joke between
the speaker and the real audience at the expense of the superficial audience,
which explains the feeling of shared superiority engendered by the irony.Objectively, irony is the appropriate trope
to capture the distinction between social appearance and reality.Because this point is central to my entire
undertaking, I must spend some time elaborating on it with an extended
example.I have deliberately chosen an
example that has little directly to do with Marx's insight into the nature of
capitalist social and economic relations, because I want you to understand the
logical/literary point I am making before I engage with the extremely
controversial theses advanced by Marx in the opening chapters of Capital.Eventually I shall connect this analysis up by arguing that Marx's complex
vision of the reality and mystifying appearance of capitalist society can be
rendered successfully only by the ironic discourse that we in fact find in Capital.This, right here, is the core of my entire narrative.It is the idea that flashed on me in 1977,
when my long exegetical odyssey began.

Imagine that I have been raised in the
Catholic faith and have arrived at my present atheistical condition through a
lengthy and painful process of questioning and self-criticism.The symbols, myths, and language of
Catholicism retain for me, as for many lapsed Catholics, a residual power that
I cannot wholly subdue, and whose direct and indirect effects in part define
who and how I am.If now I am asked,
"Do you believe in God?" how can I answer in such a way as to
communicate this complex state of affairs, with the weights and resonances of the
several portions of my religious condition given their proper magnitude?

Simply to answer, "No, I do not"
would be, strictly speaking, to lie.It
would be to lie by omission, but to lie nonetheless.Such an answer would in no way distinguish me
from someone who has had no religious upbringing and who has never
believed.It would, by omission,
represent me as a simple non-believer.To
say, "I once did, but I no longer do" comes closer, but still
misrepresents the true situation by treating the remnants of Catholicism as no
longer present in me, as having long
since been externalized and destroyed.

We might think that a true, though tedious
answer to the question would be a thorough unpacking of the situation in flat,
declarative prose, more or less as I have been doing in these past few
lines.But that really will not do
either.To speak that way is to invent a
voice that is neither the voice of
the victorious portion of myself, nor
the voice of the subdued portion, but is rather the voice of an external
observer, a scientific reporter, a neutral party implicated neither in the
original Catholic faith nor in its rejection.It would be the voice of the cultural anthropologist describing native
customs, of the social theorist denying complicity in the popular culture of
her own society by her very manner of reporting it.Insofar as I purport to be voicing my religious condition in that voice, I am lying.In all likelihood, I would be deceiving
myself at least as much as my audience.The declarative unpacking of the complexities of my loss of faith would
entirely miss the sensuous immediacy of feeling that is an essential part of my
present rejection of, and residual clinging to, Catholicism.

Consider now what could be accomplished by
means of the adoption of an ironic voice.Asked whether I believe in God, I might reply -- employing, ever so
exaggeratedly, the singsong tone of the Apostle's Creed -- "I believe in
God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and Earth and in Jesus Christ, His only
begotten son ..."These few words,
uttered thus, would capture, for an audience capable of understanding, the
entire state of affairs:that I once was
an unreflective communicant of the Roman Catholic faith, that I no longer am,
that I view my former beliefs with amusement, rather than with superstitious
fear, but that those beliefs, and the associated rituals, still have some power
over me, so that what I now am and believe can only be understood as a
development out of that earlier, credulous state.To a naive audience, it would of course
appear that I was simply answering the question in the affirmative.

At the risk of tiring those among you for whom
literary criticism is virtually second nature, let me expand on this point for
a moment.In the imaginary example I
have been discussing, my problem as the speaker is to render a correct account
of the full emotional and cognitive complexity of my relationship to the
mysteries of the Roman Catholic faith from
the inside, as it were.I am [we are
supposing] not an anthropologist bringing back stories of a Hopi rain dance or
a Trobriand Island exchange ceremony.I
am a former communicant of the Catholic Church for whom the rites of baptism and
the mass, the miracle of transubstantiation, the terror and joy of the Crucifixion
and Resurrection were once the centerpieces of my spiritual life and which
retain for me a superstitious power that I cannot ever hope fully to shake.In short, I
am myself both the first and the second audiences of my utterance, and my
ironic statement is as much a communication to both parts of myself as it is to
external audiences.

Now, at long last, let me connect
this up with the explication of Capital.

Early in his life, Marx believed
that the social relations of production were mystified in the feudal economic
order.Ordinary peasants, whose unfree
labor supported the relatively luxurious lives of the landed aristocracy and its
associated military, legal, and political accompaniments, were led by the
Church to believe that their miserable lot was divinely ordained, a belief that
as reinforced by the mysteries of the Mass.But, Marx thought, capitalism had blown away the clouds of incense hovering
over the throne and the altar, leaving in plain view the unmystified economic interactions
of the sunlit market.After the failures
of the 1848 revolutionary uprisings throughout Europe, Marx reversed his
view.Now, he concluded, it was the medieval
economic and power relations that were plain to see.There was no mystery about how the rulers
managed to maintain their power, nor about how the landowners were able to
extract a physical surplus of agricultural products from their serfs, a surplus
that they used to support armed men and compliant law courts.Rather, the real mysteries inhabit the
marketplace, the sphere that Marx mocks in the brilliant conclusion to Chapter
VI as "a very Eden of the innate rights of man.There alone rule Freedom, Equality, property,
and Bentham.... On leaving this sphere of simple circulation or of exchange of
commodities [Marx here is anticipating Léon Walras' famous description of tâtonnement], which furnishes the
"Free-trader Vulgaris" with his views and ideas [this is really
marvelous -- ed.], and with the standard by which he judges a society based on
capital and wages, we think we can perceive a change in the physiognomy of our
dramatis personae.He, who before was
the money-owner, now strides in front as capitalist;the possessor of labour-power follows as his
labourer.The one with an air of
importance, smirking, intent on business;the other, timid and holding back, like one who is bringing his own hide
to market and has nothing to expect but -- a hiding."

About Me

As I observed in one of my books, in politics I am an anarchist, in religion I am an atheist, and in economics I am a Marxist. I am also, rather more importantly, a husband, a father, a grandfather, and a violist.